News Archives - Page 10 of 275

Photo Essay: Northpark Expansion Progress from 2024 to 2025

12/26/2025 – A comparison of drone photos from December 2024 and December 2025 shows considerable progress with the Northpark Expansion project in the last year. There’s still a long way to go, but we’re much closer to the end of Phase 1 now than we were a year ago.

Photos taken today show that the major missing pieces of the puzzle include:

Bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks and Loop 494
Surface roads over the tracks
Gaps in eastbound surface lanes
Sidewalks in several places
Ponds at entries
A few hundred feet of Loop 494 both north and south of Northpark

Let’s start with today’s shots. 2024’s will follow for comparison.

Pictures Taken 12/26/2025

Going from east to west from the Kingwood Diversion Ditch toward US59, I took the following pictures today.

Phase One starts roughly where the road bends in front of the new Chevron station (r). Note the new lanes coming toward camera on left and going away from camera on right. Gone is the old center ditch, replaced by giant, buried culverts.

*Slightly farther west, you can see that all but a few driveways are completed. Outbound sidewalks still need a lot of work, but inbound sidewalks are close to done in this part of the project.*

*Still looking toward US59 from over Russell Palmer Road.*

*Farther west, the view from in front of Warren’s Nursery*

*For several blocks on either side of the entrance to Kings Mill (center left) inbound lanes remain incomplete (left).*

*Farther west, that black spot in the center is where the bridge will start rising.*

*This is where a six lane bridge will carry traffic over the tracks and Loop 494. Equipment for drilling the piers has already arrived (center foreground).*

*However, to make way for the bridge, contractors must first complete four surface lanes over the tracks.*

So what’s the holdup with the surface lanes?

*Contractors have been waiting for UPRR to move its signals and reroute the electricity that powers them.*

*This is the general area where the bridge will come crest and start to come down. Outbound surface lanes (right) are already complete. But inbound surface lanes (left) still need work.*

*The bridge will reach grade level in this general area near PNC bank.*

*Both entry ponds at US59 still need liners and final landscaping.*

*One of the two turn lanes on to Northpark was re-opened last week in response to readers’ requests.*

*Looking south along 494. Drainage east of the tracks has been completed. But drainage under 494 still needs to be tied in before 494 can be completed.*

Photos Taken 12/19/2024

A year ago…

*In- and outbound traffic was still using the original lanes while contractors paved over culverts that replaced the old center ditch.*

*All of the work focused on the center lanes in preparation for traffic switches to crews could demolish and repave the outer lanes.*

*Major demolition, driveway and drainage projects were just starting on the outbound side (right).*

*Contractors had to replace both center drainage and lateral drainage to businesses.*

*West of Loop 494, traffic virtually no work had started on the inbound side (left) yet, and most of the outbound side was still being reconstructed.*

*At the end of 2024, the old northbound lanes of Loop 494 carried both directions of traffic temporarily while crews finished the new southbound lanes.*

2025 was a year filled with both frustration mostly due to utility and railroad conflicts. But it was also filled with hope for improved safety and commute times for Northpark Drive commuters. Engineers predict Phase One of Northpark expansion should finish this time next year given favorable weather and the cooperation of UPRR.

Unfortunately to date, UPRR has been less predictable than the weather.

For More Information about Northpark Expansion

For more information about the Northpark Expansion project, see the Lake Houston Redevelopment Authority/TIRZ 10 website.

Alternatively, search this website for “Northpark” to see a list of more than 200 posts on the Northpark expansion project, the first all-weather evacuation route from Kingwood during extreme events.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/26/2025

3041 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Colony Ridge Attempting to Settle Lawsuits, Avoid Trial

12/24/25 – The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas posted notice on 12/19/25 about an agreement in principle to settle pending lawsuits between several Colony Ridge entities, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Parties Working Out Final Details

The parties requested until 12/31/25 to work out all the details, but the judge gave them until 1/6/26. The lawsuit began in 2023. CFPB alleged that Colony Ridge operated a “foreclosure mill” with predatory lending practices. Separately, the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that defendants violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) by targeting consumers of Hispanic origin with a predatory loan product.

DOJ and CFPB contend that the defendants operated an illegal land sales scheme that targeted tens of thousands of Hispanic borrowers with false statements and predatory loans.

Colony Ridge advertised property in Spanish, but allegedly provided closing documents in English to under-qualified or unqualified buyers who didn’t understand them.

The joint DOJ/CFPB press release said that Colony Ridge “sells unsuspecting families flood-prone land without water, sewer, or electrical infrastructure, and that the company sets borrowers up to fail with loans they cannot afford. Roughly 1-in-4 Colony Ridge loans ends in foreclosure, after which the company repurchases the properties and sells them to new borrowers.” It amounted, say the plaintiffs, to a “set-up-to-fail scheme that has led thousands of families to lose their dreams of homeownership.”

According to the press release at the time…

“Colony Ridge accounted for more than 92% of all foreclosures recorded in Liberty County between 2017 and 2022.”

*Merry Christmas from Colony Ridge. Photo taken on Christmas Eve of 2020.*

Colony Ridge Drainage — *Example of Drainage in Colony Ridge. Photo taken New Year’s Day of 2021.*

Flood Connection

The DOJ/CFPB complaints alleged that Colony Ridge employees fail to inform borrowers of flood risk when lots have repeatedly flooded in the past, or falsely tell them the lots have not flooded. In fact, in parts of the subdivision, rain causes significant flooding, causing raw sewage to run through or around borrowers’ property, and damaging their personal belongings. To see the original lawsuit, click here.

A separate lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton may also reportedly be close to settlement.

Together, the lawsuits affect potentially tens of thousands of people.

Why Litigants Often Settle

In general, a settlement that avoids a trial offers a set of well-recognized advantages including:

Cost Control and Predictability
- Reduces legal fees and expenses
- Limits financial exposure at a known amount
- Avoids open-ended risk of adverse verdicts with interest, creates budget certainty.
Risk Reduction
- Eliminates uncertain outcomes from juries, judges, evidentiary rulings, and witness credibility
- Replaces a win/lose outcome with a negotiated result
- Avoids catastrophic downside, such as runaway verdicts, punitive damages, injunctive relief
- Limits worst-case scenarios.
Time and Resource Efficiency
- Faster resolution
- Trials in state and federal courts can run on for years, including appeals
- Lets organizations reallocate resources to core activities.
Confidentiality and Information Control
- Settlements can include confidentiality provisions, whereas trials produce public records, testimony, and findings
- Protects sensitive information
- Avoids public disclosure of internal documents, financial data, trade secrets, or politically sensitive communications.
Control Over the Outcome
- Lets parties shape result rather than delegating the outcome to a judge or jury
- Can include operational changes, phased payments, land transfers, policy adjustments, or cooperative frameworks that courts may lack authority to impose.
Relationship Preservation
- Reduces adversarial escalation
- Facilitates future cooperation.
Reputational and Political Benefits
- Lower public exposure; less media coverage and political attention
- Resolves disputes quietly
- Avoids adverse precedent or findings.
Finality
- Reduced appeal risk
- Releases and waivers reduce likelihood of prolonged appeals
- Closure; parties can move forward without lingering legal uncertainty.
Strategic
- Avoids creating case law that could constrain future actions or invite copy-cat litigation.

Bottom Line

A settlement that avoids trial primarily delivers:

Lower cost
Lower risk
Greater certainty
Faster resolution
Greater control
Reduced public exposure

These advantages explain why the vast majority of civil disputes—reportedly well over 90%—resolve through settlement rather than trial, even when one side believes it has a strong legal case.

Bottom Line for Colony Ridge Activist

Maria Acevedo, a Colony Ridge land purchaser who has struggled for years to draw attention to the development’s sales and development issues, is happy about the potential settlement.

But not because of any money she might get. She said, “This settlement acknowledges the legitimacy of claims that go back years.” Acevedo sees it as vindication. “But it can never fix the damages,” she says. “No amount of money can ever replace the quality of life that was lost.”

While a final settlement has not yet been reached, thousands of Colony Ridge victims will likely see the settlement in a similar light – as a bittersweet Christmas present.

Colony Ridge ditch erosion — *Unprotected Colony Ridge ditch eroding into homeowners’ yards. Picture taken in 2023*

FM 1010 — *FM1010 washout caused by excessive, uncontrolled runoff from ditch above has not been fixed since Hurricane Harvey.* *The loss of this major north/south artery has caused major delays for Colony Ridge and surrounding residents for years.*

For More Information

For more information about life and loss in Colony Ridge, see a post I wrote called History of Heartbreak. It contains links to more than 75 posts about Colony Ridge. Those posts contain hundreds of photos showing conditions there.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/24/25

3039 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

State Agency Responsible for Flood Mitigation Invests in Flood-Prone Development

12/22/25 – The Texas General Land Office (GLO), which manages state and federal money for flood mitigation, has invested an undisclosed sum of money in a flood-prone development at the confluence of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork. See below.

*From FEMA’s Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. Brown = 500-year floodplain, Aqua = 100-year, Cross-hatched = Floodway. Map dated 2014.* *Floodplains will likely expand 50-100% in updated maps based on Atlas 14.*

On the surface, the GLO investment appears to be a conflict of interest. Dig deeper and two separate mandates for the GLO emerge that are not reconciled in state law:

To mitigate flooding
To help fund public schools.

The GLO home page trumpets how it manages $14.3 billion in disaster recovery and flood mitigation funds.

Simultaneously, the GLO’s website stresses how it manages $60 billion dollars in public school funds. But the investment funds strategic plan makes no mention of flooding. It does, however, say they seek “exceptional returns.” Developments in floodplains can provide those.

I gave multiple people in the GLO Press Office a chance to comment on this post before I published it. Not one replied.

Amount at Stake Could Be as High as $140 Million

A company called Ryko sold the 5,000+ acres in question to Scarborough Houston/San Jacinto Preserve earlier this year.

State Representative Steve Toth claimed in a press release on December 11, 2025, that he was working to revoke the state’s “$140 million investment” in the project by the GLO’s School Land Board.

However, Ryan Burkhardt, the president of Scarborough, told ReduceFlooding that Scarborough itself had close to $140 million invested in the project. He admitted the state was his partner, but refused to say how much the state invested.

Subsequent efforts to verify the GLO involvement in this project revealed that the School Land Board, a group within the GLO, invested in the property. However, the GLO refused to reveal the amount of the investment (and did not say that the investment had been revoked as Toth’s press release claimed).

GLO Statement Admits Involvement, But Sheds Little Light

The terse GLO statement below raises more questions than it answers.

“This investment was approved by the School Land Board (SLB) pursuant to Chapter 51 of the Texas Natural Resources Code (TNRC). The GLO’s investment in this project through the SLB as a limited partner was contingent upon Montgomery County’s approval of the drainage study, which was successfully completed in July 2025. As Land Commissioner, I am committed to preventing future flooding. We are meeting with stakeholders and have heard the local concerns regarding this project. Our agency is dedicated to serving the best interests of the community.” Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, M.D.

Conflicting Mandates

More exploration revealed that the GLO wears two hats. It simultaneously manages flood-mitigation programs and invests School Land Board capital – sometimes in flood-prone land – under conflicting statutory obligations and fiduciary standards.

Those functions report to the same elected official – Dawn Buckingham, M.D. They are:

Flood-Mitigation

Under various statutes and federal requirements, the GLO:

Administers U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant funds for Disaster Relief and Flood Mitigation (HUD CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT)
Manages large-scale flood mitigation and buyout programs
Works with local entities such as Harris County Flood Control District, to reduce flooding
Evaluates flood risk, vulnerability, and benefit-cost ratios.

In this role, the GLO must:

Reduce flood risk
Avoid repetitive loss
Comply with federal mitigation standards
Justify investments of tax dollars based on public safety and resilience.

School Finance

Separately, under the Texas Constitution and Natural Resources Code Chapter 51, the GLO (through the School Land Board) must:

Manage land and money as a trust
Maximize long-term returns
Avoid sacrificing value for unrelated policy goals.

The real conflict here may be competing, internal statutory silos.

Texas law reportedly does not require the GLO’s flood-mitigation knowledge, data, or policy goals to constrain its school-investment decisions.

There seems to be NO:

Statutory cross-check
Internal requirement preventing such conflict
Duty to reconcile flood-risk mitigation goals with land monetization.

The same agency can therefore:

Fund buyouts downstream while…
Profiting upstream from development pressure that increases downstream risk…

…without violating any explicit statute.

Three Potential Conflicts

From a governance perspective, this arrangement creates at least three tensions:

First, the GLO:

Possesses detailed flood-risk data in its mitigation role.
But it is not legally required to make investment decisions that consider that data.

Second, the State can:

Invest capital in flood-prone land at a discount
Benefit from development-driven appreciation
Later deploy flood-mitigation grants funded by taxpayers to address resulting impacts.

Third, the conflict creates the appearance of policy incoherence. The State appears to be:

Subsidizing flood risk on one side of the balance sheet
Funding mitigation on the other.

Why This Remains Legal

According to ChatGPT, this dual role persists because “the Texas Constitution elevates school-fund fiduciary duties to near-absolute status.”

Absent a statute saying, “School fund investments shall be consistent with state flood-mitigation objectives,” the GLO operates in parallel lanes and pursues investments with the highest rates of return.

Sadly, in this case, that includes property in floodplains undervalued upfront because of flood risk.

Where This Leaves the Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve Issue

The school-fund investment side of the GLO may not even understand the flood risk or recognize the political sensitivity. It likely focuses only on evaluating the land primarily as an undervalued trust asset.

This case makes a powerful example of conflicts of interest. However, I have another concern: transparency. Two state legislators and multiple residents have requested information about the state’s involvement with little luck.

Both Toth and State Representative Charles Cunningham have reached out to the GLO on behalf of downstream constituents. But so far, neither legislator has received an explanation.

Even worse, residents’ FOIA requests (going back to October) have been denied and appealed to the State Attorney General’s office, which denied them also. Three months of inquiry have resulted only in the one terse statement printed above.

This is an absolute PR disaster fraught with multiple potential conflicts of interest. The GLO is creating the appearance of a coverup even if none exists.
Bob Rehak

Need for Full Disclosure Now

The State and GLO should insist on full disclosure now. That includes any political contributions made by the land owners or sellers (directly, or indirectly through family members, employees or PACs) to state officials, especially those connected to the School Land Board.

According to the Texas Water Development Board’s most recent state flood plan, the number of Texans living in floodplains exceeds the population of 30 states. This investment illustrates one of the reasons.

We also need to verify whether the developer really received approval of its drainage impact analysis in July of 2025, as claimed in the GLO statement above. The so-called “approval” letter I have from the Montgomery County engineer dated July 2025 (when Ryko still owned the land) is best characterized as preliminary. It says, “Here are three pages of issues you need to address to get approval.” It does NOT give full, final approval.

One issue MoCo raises is adequate emergency access during 500-year, Atlas-14 flood events. But a Townsend Blvd. extension across Spring Creek was taken off Montgomery County’s 2025 road bond to help deter development of Scarborough’s property.

At this point, Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler, Harris County, State Representative Steve Toth, and City of Houston have all come out against this project because of the flood risk. But I have seen no official announcements from the Governor’s Office or the GLO about cancelling their support.

In my opinion, the only good investment in this land would be to turn it into a state park.

To continue backing this Scarborough deal may make better financial sense than public policy. As one public official told me, “Typical government…trying to fix problems it creates!”

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/22/25

3037 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Home Buyers Beware: Will that Green Space Behind You Remain Green?

12/20/2025 – People pay a premium to live near green space. But will the promises made during a sale be kept? Will that green space remain green, or will it be gobbled up by more development in the future? Here’s a guide to language that should raise red flags when looking at development plans, sales contracts, and public documents. Words can imply one thing, but not be legally binding. So, buyer beware.

The Proximity Premium that Vanishes

Many developers who build in or near floodplains promise early buyers that the green space around them will be “designated as” parks and is “intended for” recreational use.

A review of 33 studies found that properties near green space command a premium of 8–10%. Another study suggests the “proximity premium” may be as high as 20%.

But developers’ plans can change. And the home buyer’s beautiful view disappears. And remember, wetlands may no longer guarantee that land cannot be developed.

Why Developers May Leave Green Space Initially

There are also several regulator reasons why developers may leave large swaths of green space in their original plans. They communicate:

The project provides regional flood storage
Downstream impacts are minimized
Remaining land functions as mitigation, not loss.

Framing plans this way also:

Reduces perceived flood risk
Reduces organized opposition
Narrows legal exposure
Makes the project sound less aggressive.

This is standard practice on controversial floodplain projects according to flood experts I have interviewed.

But Will Green Space Remain Forever?

Many developers promise green space. But will it remain green forever?

Scarborough in MoCo

A Dallas-based developer named Scarborough recently purchased 5000+ acres west of Kingwood through a subsidiary called San Jacinto Preserve. Most of it is in floodplains and floodways. Their president, Ryan Burkhardt says they only “plan” to develop 38% of the land. He repeatedly emphasized that more than half of his land will be used as green space.

Ryko drainage impact study illustration showing outline and floodplains. — *Ryko sold its property outlined in red to Scarborough earlier this year.*

But he ALSO does not plan to put a conservation easement on the green space. Nor is he donating the green space to the City, County or State. This is typical.

I don’t care to cast aspersions on Burkhardt’s integrity. He was brave in returning my phone call and seemed quite candid. But to me, those are red flags. It follows a recurring pattern. For instance…

Signorelli in Commons of Lake Houston

In Huffman, Signorelli reportedly promised buyers in The Commons of Lake Houston that the floodplain land around them would remain green space for community recreational purposes, such as hiking and horseback riding. But now, the company is trying to turn a large part of that floodplain land into more homesites. Signorelli has fought the City of Houston for ten years all the way to the Texas Supreme Court for the right to do so.

Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houston Floodplains and General Plan — Signorelli’s proposed “Crossing at the Commons of Lake Houston” opposite East Fork from Kingwood’s East End Park. Dotted lines snaking through and around the home sites represent the 100- and 500-year floodplains.

Holley in Royal Shores

Also on the East Fork, on the Kingwood side of the river, Friendswood sat on land in Royal Shores that people used for hiking for more than 30 years. Then they sold it to developer Ron Holley earlier this year. One hundred percent of the land is in floodplains.

Royal Shores Wetlands — *See large aqua colored area in center.*

Wetlands occupy much of it. Wetlands used to deter development, but those rules could soon change.

Friendswood tried to develop this land for years before selling it to Holley. Here’s what the land just north of there looks like.

Friendswood gave East End Park to the Kingwood Service Association in 1988 to preserve it for the community. It is NOT in danger of being developed. However, Friendswood retained control of their Royal Shores green space until they sold it to Holley. And now nearby residents may lose their recreational area.

Recognize the Red Flags that Could Undermine Your Home Value

How can you be certain green space around you will remain green and not be developed in the future? Some hints:

Ask for legal guarantees in the form of conservation easements or deeds donating the land to a City, County or State as public parkland. If they don’t exist, be wary.
Be wary of what advertisers call “weasel words.” If a developer says he “plans on” leaving land as green space, that gives him a legal out if plans change. Same with “intends to.”
Look for designations on maps with words like “Buffer,” “Reserve,” “Future Phase,” “Drainage Reserve,” or “Open Space.” Such words have no legal or regulatory definitions.
If the land is dedicated to an HOA or POA, who controls the entity? The developer? If so, he can dedicate it for something else when he’s ready to develop the land.
Do you see maps from Commissioners Court saying things like “subject to future engineering review”?
Does the appraisal district classify any of the land as “livable” or “usable”?
Is there a binding commitment to Commissioners Court ensuring permanent floodplain storage or a conservation function?
Do deed restrictions explicitly prohibit future fill or structures?
Are there special appraisals on the land such as “timber” or “wildlife” that minimize the developer’s carrying costs?

Here are two checklists with even more warning signs to look for:

One is geared to Montgomery County Engineering Department and Commissioners Court reviews.
The other is more general.

Use them to make sure someone doesn’t try to turn “your” promised green space into greenbacks.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/20/25

3035 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

The Profit in Floodplain Development Explained

12/19/25 – Despite substantial hurdles, floodplain development can be very profitable for patient developers with deep pockets, even if only a small percentage of their land is developed.

For instance, Scarborough Lane Development/San Jacinto Preserve LP has purchased more than 5,000 acres of land in floodplains and floodways near the confluence of four waterways. They include the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and Turkey Creek.

Floodplains Streams from Ryko Drainage Study — *Base map from seller’s preliminary drainage analysis. Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve property outlined in red.* *Shades of blue represent floodways and floodplains on property.*

Buyer Says It Paid $140 Million for Property Appraised at Less Than $1 Million

Scarborough claims it paid close to $140 million for the property – 8X higher than the Montgomery County Appraisal District (MCAD) places the market value of the land and 175X higher than the appraised value. See below.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Scarborough-Appraised-Value-1024x518.png — *Source: MCAD-TX.org*. *Timber exemptions account for low appraised value.* Size = acres

Even more stunning, Ryko, the company that sold the property to Scarborough/SJP, produced a preliminary engineering study that suggested only 38% of the land was developable because it has such high flood risk.

So, in what galaxy does this make economic sense?

Actually, it makes perfect sense – if you understand how the game is played.

Spread Makes Bread

Said another way, buy low; sell high.

The exceedingly low appraised value of floodplain land helps developers acquire and hold the land, sometimes for decades – at a very low tax cost while they work out regulatory issues. And when they do, the step change in value is so great, that if only 20% of the land is developable, they likely still make money.

This is according to ChatGPT, which costed out details of several development scenarios for me. One was even profitable with only 10% developable land.

A wide spread between acquisition costs and potential land sales after all permits and mitigation costs are accounted for is one of the main reasons why developers target floodplain land.

The dynamic is well understood in land economics and is particularly visible in fast-growing regions like Montgomery County.

Floodplain land often sells at a steep discount relative to nearby uplands because of:

Regulatory limits (floodway vs. floodplain)
Engineering costs (fill, detention, bridges)
Uncertainty (permitting, litigation, political risk)
Time value (increased holding costs because of longer periods before land becomes salable).

With steep, discounted prices in mind, even modest success—e.g., making 20–30% of a tract buildable — can make the entire investment profitable. Anything above that is gravy.

Why Floodplain Land Produces Unusually Large Spreads

Floodplain land tends to be priced as “mostly unusable.” Once permits are secured, the buildable portion prices like normal land. But the remainder can still be monetized as detention, mitigation, or open space.

Better yet for the developer, some of the land designated as green space may even be developed years later as the pain of flooding dims and political winds shift.

This can create huge “step” changes in land value.

Factors that Amplify Spread

In Texas, several factors amplify this spread. Consider, for instance:

Timber Exemptions that Lower Carrying Costs:

Developers pay only a few dollars in taxes per acre per year. On the five parcels above, taxes average $148 per acre per year. That makes patience very cheap. A well capitalized developer can afford to wait years while working out permitting issues.

Timber exemptions also mask speculative intent. On paper, the land looks like a passive forestry holding, not a development play.

Reliance on Post-Development Mitigation at Public Expense:

Some developers shift part of their mitigation costs onto the public. For example, some developers in Montgomery County have avoided building detention basins by using questionable flood routing studies. Even the former Montgomery County engineer criticized the practice. As flood peaks build over time, downstream residents clamor for mitigation. But it comes at public expense. So the developer has effectively externalized some of its costs.

Permissive Local Drainage Rules and Lax Enforcement:

This is especially true in counties that surround fast growing metropolitan areas. Some counties around Houston still use drainage criteria from the 1980s to help attract development.

Sometimes gaps in regulations cause flooding as Elm Grove discovered twice in 2019. Many floodplain developers tend to exploit such gaps in regulations and then claim they are complying with all applicable regulations.

Montgomery County recently upgraded its drainage criteria manual and adopted Atlas 14 rainfall probability standards. But willful blindness among regulators can still create a permissive environment to the detriment of people living downstream.

Risk/Reward Ratio Attracts Only Certain Types of Developers

Floodplain land tends to attract well-capitalized, patient developers with a 10–20 year horizon. For those with deep pockets and powerful partners, economics may work even if 90% of the land never becomes buildable.

This is not accidental; it is a rational, well-understood land-banking strategy.

However, the spread only turns into profit if risk converts to permission. It collapses if floodway limits are strictly enforced, mitigation costs surge, public opposition blocks approvals, or political sentiment hardens after major floods.

In such cases, floodplain land can become a capital trap, not a bargain. But still…

The large spread between low purchase cost and high potential value is a major magnet for developers.

And that’s how the Houston region got 65,000 homes built in floodplains since Hurricane Harvey, as investigative reporter Yilun Cheng discovered for the Houston Chronicle.

Courageous reporting, such as hers, makes flood risk highly visible and politically salient. And that makes the spread harder to monetize. Witness recent resolutions by Harris County Precinct 3 and the City of Houston. It will be interesting to see Scarborough’s next moves.

Next Up

I am working on a series of posts about floodplain development. Next, I’ll examine the seductive promise of green space. Floodplain developers often promote abundant, recreational green space to early buyers in a development.

But just as often, they try to monetize that green space during the latter stages of a development – green space they promised early buyers would remain green forever. Check out the warning-sign checklists in my next post before you buy property to see if your green space could someday vanish.

*Scarborough property near US59 bridge west of Kingwood. San Jacinto West Fork on right.* *During Harvey, water was 27 feet above the level you see here.*

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/19/2025

3034 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Houston City Council Unanimously Passes Resolution Opposing Scarborough Development

12/17/25 – This morning, Houston City Council unanimously passed a motion opposing development on 5,000 acres owned by Scarborough Lane Development/San Jacinto Preserve immediately west of Kingwood at the confluence of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek and the San Jacinto West Fork.

In opposing the development, the resolution cited:

“Catastrophic flooding rendering the tract unmistakably unfit for residential development”
“Potential liability associated with placing future residents in an area of heightened risk for property damage, personal injury, and loss of life”
The need to build homes to higher standards than Montgomery County (MoCo) currently requires
Substantially increased flood risks for existing residents of both Montgomery and Harris Counties.

The resolution, proposed by District E Council Member Fred Flickinger, also said “the highest and best use of this property should be evaluated for flood-mitigation” and “public park purposes.”

See the Council discussing Agenda Item 18 at https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JmfRou5CH/. It starts 2:16:17 into the video.

Today’s resolution closely matches one adopted unanimously by Harris County Commissioners Court on 12/11/25. However, neither resolution effectively kills the development. But they do send a strong message that may lead to a better outcome for nearby and downstream residents. See more below.

Scarborough’s Position

Scarborough claims that they would develop the property responsibly and observe all local floodplain regulations and development standards.

I asked their president, Ryan Burkhardt, whether they would observe the highest standards (referring to Harris County standards versus MoCo’s). He said several times that they would observe local regulations.

But MoCo standards are lower than Harris County’s. The primary differences have to do with bringing fill into the 500-year floodplain and minimum finished-floor elevations.

Harris County prohibits fill in the 500-year floodplain; Montgomery County allows it.
Harris County sets the height of living space at the 500-year flood level; Montgomery County sets it at one foot above the 100-year floodplain.

Burkhardt did say that his development plans are based on Atlas 14 statistics. But he also said that they are still at least a couple years away from detailed plans that show exactly where they plan to build houses relative to those floodplains.

Burkhardt also asked me to communicate to readers that his company plans to leave 52% of their acreage as green space. He objected to the characterization of the development as a 5,000 acre development and repeatedly said that they plan only to develop a subset of those 5,000 acres.

*Detail from presentation to Houston District E and Harris County Precinct 3*

Given the fact that homes nearby on higher ground have already flooded, it will be difficult to develop new homes safely at lower elevations. I asked a hydrologist who has studied development in flood-prone areas whether there was any way to develop this property safely.

He replied that the only way to do that would be to elevate the homes on stilts. That way, when floods rise, water can safely pass underneath the homes without obstruction.

But that may be difficult for large homes. Burkhardt said he plans to build large homes on large lots similar to those that are already in Bender’s Landing Estates. HAR.com shows that the median living area for homes in Benders Landing Estates is approximately 4,522 square feet.

*Typical homes in Bender’s Landing Estates*

Listings in the area commonly show homes ranging from about 4,000 to 9,900+ square feet in size, with many properties built at 4,000–6,000+ square feet.

Green-Space Guarantees?

In our discussion, Burkhardt repeatedly came back to the 52% of the property that he says he would leave as green space.

That’s a selling point. We have certainly seen developers throughout the region say similar things. Living next to natural areas is a strong inducement for buyers looking at expensive homes.

But often, after developers sell the homes on higher ground, they start looking for ways to monetize the green space that they promised would remain green forever.

I’m not saying Scarborough would do that. But it’s a common practice. In fact, it’s already happened to several homeowners I talked to in Benders Landing Estates. It’s also happening to people at The Commons of Lake Houston. There, the developer fought the City of Houston for ten years (all the way to the Texas Supreme Court) for the right to build on floodplain land that he promised would remain recreational forever.

Two common strategies to guarantee land remains green forever are:

To put conservation easements on it through a group such as the Bayou Land Conservancy.
Turn it into public parks by deeding it to the City, County or State for that purpose.

However, Burkhardt was not willing to commit to either alternative.

$140 Million Mystery: Who is the Joint Venture Partner?

In my conversation with Burkhardt, he said that his project was a “joint venture.” However, he refused to tell me who the partner was.

I have learned from three other sources that the Texas General Land Office (GLO) may have something to do with the project. One other knowledgeable source said it may have something to do with a fund managed by the Governor, which the GLO administers.

Several sources told me that $140 million tax dollars were at stake. However, Burkhardt repeatedly denied that and said his company paid “close to” $140 million for the property. Hmmmm.

If this was such a good deal and if the GLO was involved, you think they would trumpet their investment. However, nearby residents who would be affected by the development had to file a FOIA request to see what the GLO’s involvement was.

The GLO denied the request and appealed it to the Attorney General. The Attorney General’s office gave the GLO the right to keep the information secret.

However, the Attorney General’s Office dragged its feet so long that it missed the deadline for responding. That made the records public by default, according to the original requestor. He therefore demanded the immediate release of all records responsive to his request.

As of this afternoon, neither the Attorney General, nor the GLO have responded with any records. I guess they must be embarrassing to someone.

If the state has no involvement, why don’t they just say so?

But they’re not saying “We are not involved.” They’re saying, “We have the right to keep our involvement secret.”

GLO Press Office Also Non-Responsive

Meanwhile, I couldn’t obtain any records either. I personally contacted the GLO press office for information. And the press office did not respond to the request. They said they needed “more time to research it.” However, the person responsible has since stopped taking phone calls or responding to emails re: the status. So, at this time, several serious questions remain:

What roles do the GLO and the Governor’s offices play in this “joint venture,” if any?
Is “joint venture” a fair characterization of the relationship, if any?
If the state is involved, is the involvement purely financial?
If so, how much money is involved?
Where does the money come from?
Are any federal dollars involved?
Did the state legislature appropriate the money or is it part of an official’s discretionary budget?
What happens to any money committed if the developer cannot secure the necessary permits?
Why would an agency that manages disaster relief/flood mitigation for the state and federal government support floodplain development?

If the state invested $140 million in this property, I say we should convert it to a park and put this issue to rest in perpetuity.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/17/25

3032 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

City Council to Vote on Development in Area with Catastrophic Flooding

12/14/25 – The Houston City Council will vote Wednesday, December 17 on a resolution opposing the proposed 5,300 acre Scarborough Lane/San Jacinto Preserve Development in Montgomery County. Virtually the entire area lies in floodplains and floodways west of Kingwood near the confluence of the San Jacinto West Fork, Spring Creek, and Cypress Creek.

The resolution says that the area is “repeatedly marked by catastrophic flooding, rendering the tract unmistakably unfit for residential development.”

The City resolution comes less than a week after Harris County unanimously adopted a similar resolution

Resolution Highlights Potential Liability to Developer

The resolution, proposed by District E Council Member Fred Flickinger, also warns the developer about “potential liability associated with placing future residents in an area of heightened risk for property damage, personal injury, and loss of life.”

While the proposed development lies wholly within Montgomery County, it also lies wholly within Houston’s city limits and extra-territorial jurisdiction.

The resolution largely parallels a similar motion adopted unanimously on 12/11/2025 by Harris County Commissioners Court.

Other Key Provisions of Resolution

Among other things, the resolution urges Montgomery County to:

Apply Harris County drainage standards when evaluating the developer’s plans
Evaluate the property for flood-mitigation, flood-preservation, and public park purposes
Implement flood-mitigation protections while restoring wetlands, replenishing groundwater, and safeguarding the future of surrounding communities.

See the complete text below or download the PDF here.

Text of Resolution

City of Houston, Texas, Resolution No. 2025-

A RESOLUTION OF HOUSTON CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING THE PROPOSED SCARBOROUGH LANE DEVELOPMENT IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, LOCATED IN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS AND A PORTION IN AN AREA ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS FOR LIMITED PURPOSES; CONTAINING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE FOREGOING SUBJECT.

* * * * *

WHEREAS, The City of Houston and Harris County lead the nation in flood-prevention investments, with more than $3.5 billion committed to flood-mitigation projects over the coming years, and urges Montgomery County leadership to adopt, at minimum, the drainage criteria previously approved by the Harris County Commissioners Court; and

WHEREAS, the land proposed for the Scarborough Lane Project in Montgomery County rests at the vulnerable confluence of Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, an area repeatedly marked by catastrophic flooding, rendering the tract unmistakably unfit for residential development; and

WHEREAS, any further construction within this well-documented flood zone would inevitably heighten flood dangers, placing the residents of Montgomery and Harris Counties at greater risk and compounding the devastation they have already endured; and

WHEREAS, this resolution serves as notice to the developer regarding potential liability associated with placing future residents in an area of heightened risk for property damage, personal injury, and loss of life; and

WHEREAS, the highest and best use of this property should be evaluated for flood-mitigation, flood-preservation, and public park purposes; and

WHEREAS, any development of this parcel must rigorously meet or exceed Harris County standards, including the elevation of finished floors, and any proposed mitigation ponds must be located entirely outside the current 100-year floodplain and completely beyond the floodway, ensuring no increased risk to surrounding communities; and

WHEREAS, all mitigation efforts should prioritize detaining stormwater as early as possible during rainfall events; and

WHEREAS, this tract stands as a rare and extraordinary opportunity to transform a hazardous flood zone into a steadfast shield against disaster, delivering vital flood-mitigation protections while restoring wetlands, replenishing groundwater, and safeguarding the future of surrounding communities;

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS:

Section 1. That the findings contained in the preamble of this Resolution are determined to be true and correct and are hereby adopted as part of this Resolution.

Section 2. That the City Council respectfully calls upon the leadership of Montgomery County to reconsider the currently proposed Scarborough Lane development and any future development on this property, as it poses unacceptable hazards to future residents of Montgomery County and will substantially increase flood risks for existing residents of both Montgomery and Harris Counties.

Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the Mayor; however, in the event that the Mayor fails to sign this Resolution within five days after its passage and adoption, it shall take effect in accordance with Article VI, Section 6, Houston City Charter.

[Signatures]

HCFCD/MoCo Both Tried to Buy Property for Flood Mitigation

Harris County Flood Control District tried to buy the property after passage of the 2018 flood bond. But reportedly, the property owner at the time wanted much more than the appraised value of the property.

A person familiar with the negotiations at the time told me that, “If that property ever gets developed, it would be like aiming a fire hose at Kingwood and Humble.

Ryko, the owner at the time, planned to build 7000 new homes on the property according to Montgomery County Precinct 3 Commissioner Ritch Wheeler. Wheeler also tried to buy the property. But the developer reportedly wanted north of $100 million for it.

A press release by Wheeler, dated 12/11/25, states that he believes “preserving this land for public use and for future generations remains a shared goal across our community.”

“If successful,” Wheeler said, “the effort would allow the land to be protected for regional detention, parks, trails, and natural green spaces, ensuring it remains an environmental and recreational asset for Montgomery County residents.”

For More Background Information

See these previous posts about Ryko, Scarborough and the San Jacinto Preserve.

12/13/25 Harris County Passes Ramsey Resolution on Scarborough Development In MoCo

10/31/25 Supposed “Letter of No Objection” to Floodplain Development Lists 3 Pages of Objections

10/30/25 New Plans to Develop 5,316 Acres West of Kingwood Mostly in Floodplains, Floodways

10/16/25 Developer Buys 5300 Acres of Floodplains, Floodways, Wetlands from Ryko

5/7/25 Is It Safe to Build 7,000 Homes on Ryko Land?

5/6/25 Montgomery County Engineering Letter Blasts Ryko’s Drainage Study

4/25/25 Lengthy Catalog of Concerns about Proposed Ryko Development

4/23/25 Harris County Did NOT Approve Ryko Development

4/18/25 Bald Eagles Live Where Developer Wants to Build 7,000 Homes

4/17/25 MoCo Commissioner Taking Townsen Blvd. Extension Off 2025 Road Bond

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/14/25

3029 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Harris County Passes Ramsey Resolution on Scarborough Development In MoCo

12/13/25 – On 12/11/25, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey, PE, introduced a resolution in Harris County Commissioners Court that urges Montgomery County (MoCo) to impose certain conditions on the proposed 5,300-acre Scarborough Development west of Kingwood. Harris County Flood Control tried to buy the property after Hurricane Harvey because they feared that if it got developed, “it would be like aiming a fire hose at Kingwood and Humble.” Ryko, the property owner at the time, quoted a price far over market value. So, the deal fell through. But those fears still exist.

While Harris County can’t force MoCo to do anything, the proposed conditions include:

Adopting Harris County’s proposed minimum drainage standards
Recognizing the extreme flood risk of development for current residents in both counties
Using portions of the property for flood mitigation and parks
Ensuring development meets or exceeds Harris County standards including:
- Finished floor elevations
- Placing mitigation ponds outside the 100-year floodplain and floodway
Fostering growth of wetlands and water filtration.

*Scarborough bought most of the land you see in this picture between Spring Creek (l) and San Jacinto West Fork (r). Base flood elevation at the confluence is 25.1 feet above ground level* *using old, pre-Harvey flood maps.*

Ramsey’s resolution is high-level; most resolutions are. But it makes good points. For instance, while MoCo’s new Drainage Criteria Manual is a vast improvement over their previous one, it still falls short of Harris County’s on several key criteria including finished floor elevations and placing fill in the 500-year floodplain. Those concerns are expressed in the text below.

Exact Text of Harris County Resolution

WHEREAS, Harris County leads the country in flood prevention investments with $3.5 billion being spent on flood mitigation projects in the next few years, and calls upon Montgomery County leadership to adopt the minimum drainage criteria as per the previously approved Harris County Commissioner’s Court document; and

WHEREAS, the land under development in Montgomery County for the Scarborough Lane Project, is situated in close proximity to Spring Creek, Cypress Creek, and the San Jacinto River, and the historical flood data of this tract of land causes concerns for residential development, and any further development on this property in the flood zone may result in a negative impact to current residents of Montgomery and Harris counties; and

WHEREAS, portions of this property should be reviewed and considered for flood mitigation, flood preservation and park development; and

WHEREAS, any development of this parcel should meet or exceed the Harris County standards, including the finish floor elevations of the structure, and any mitigation ponds be considered only outside the current 100-year floodplain and all the floodway; and

WHEREAS, any mitigation completed should consider trying to hold back water early in a storm, detaining the first of the water that falls; and

WHEREAS, this tract of land renders a significant and affordable flood mitigation opportunity that would not only prevent flood damage, but foster wetland growth and ground water filtration; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Harris County Commissioners Court calls upon the Montgomery County leadership to take into consideration the concerns described above.

Considerations Related to the Scarborough Lane Project

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this resolution be spread upon the minutes of The Harris County Commissioners Court this 11th day of December 2025.

Ramsey’s Motion Passed Unanimously; Next Up CoH

County Judge Lina Hidalgo, Ramsey and all three other commissioners voted for Ramsey’s resolution. It passed 5-0.

Houston City Council will reportedly consider a similar resolution on Wednesday. District E Council Member Fred Flickinger says he is optimistic that he has the votes to get it approved.

Note that the City actually has a bigger stick in this fight because most of the land lies within the City limits or the City’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). ETJ helps cities plan and regulate development in unincorporated areas near their borders, influencing growth before annexation.

On October 30, Scarborough and its engineers met with the City and Harris County to discuss their plans. At the time, they presented some high-level documents claiming that half the land would be preserved as green space. That’s certainly a step in the right direction. But is it enough? We will be in a better position to tell when we’ve reviewed their complete plans. And when Harris County Flood Control and FEMA release updated flood maps.

In the meantime, I’ll be watching to see what City Council does next Wednesday.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/13/25

3028 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Government Response to Camp Mystic/Guadalupe Tragedy

FEMA Cancels BRIC Program

FEMA Slowdown

HUD/GLO Finish Rebuilding Program

Status of Other GLO/HUD Programs

Montgomery County Updates Flood Regulations

Competing Forces at Work

Cyclones Ravage Indian Ocean

Cyclone Senyar

Cyclone Ditwah

No Hurricanes Strike U.S. Coastline

Guadalupe Tragedy

Top Flood-Related Stories of 2025 Illustrate Lessons of History

Pictures Taken 12/26/2025

Photos Taken 12/19/2024

For More Information about Northpark Expansion

Parties Working Out Final Details

Flood Connection

Why Litigants Often Settle

Bottom Line

Bottom Line for Colony Ridge Activist

For More Information

Amount at Stake Could Be as High as $140 Million

GLO Statement Admits Involvement, But Sheds Little Light

Conflicting Mandates

Flood-Mitigation

School Finance

Three Potential Conflicts

Why This Remains Legal

Where This Leaves the Scarborough/San Jacinto Preserve Issue

Need for Full Disclosure Now

The Proximity Premium that Vanishes

Why Developers May Leave Green Space Initially

But Will Green Space Remain Forever?

Scarborough in MoCo

Signorelli in Commons of Lake Houston

Holley in Royal Shores

Recognize the Red Flags that Could Undermine Your Home Value

Buyer Says It Paid $140 Million for Property Appraised at Less Than $1 Million

Spread Makes Bread

Why Floodplain Land Produces Unusually Large Spreads

Factors that Amplify Spread

Timber Exemptions that Lower Carrying Costs:

Reliance on Post-Development Mitigation at Public Expense:

Permissive Local Drainage Rules and Lax Enforcement:

Risk/Reward Ratio Attracts Only Certain Types of Developers

Next Up

Scarborough’s Position

Green-Space Guarantees?

$140 Million Mystery: Who is the Joint Venture Partner?

GLO Press Office Also Non-Responsive

Resolution Highlights Potential Liability to Developer

Other Key Provisions of Resolution

Text of Resolution

City of Houston, Texas, Resolution No. 2025-

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS:

HCFCD/MoCo Both Tried to Buy Property for Flood Mitigation

For More Background Information

Exact Text of Harris County Resolution

Considerations Related to the Scarborough Lane Project

Ramsey’s Motion Passed Unanimously; Next Up CoH